Jump to content

Welcome to AirlineForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!


Photo

First 757 to outsourced MRO


  • Please log in to reply
322 replies to this topic

#13
TWU informer

TWU informer

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7284 posts

Actually, the treaty was signed by Pres. George Bush, the first--a Republican. It was not ratified by the U.S. Senate until after Clinton took office--ratified by a REPUBLICAN controlled U.S. Senate. N.A.F.T.A is a treaty, not a law. Since it is a treaty, there was no need for President Clinton to sign it. It had already been signed by President Bush. It only needed ratification by the U.S. Senate.


IT was signed into law by Bill Clinton

Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[1][2] Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated: "...NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[3]


If there was no need to sign it into law, the what was he doing on December 8th, 1993?

Where do you poeple get this crap you believe anyway?

U.S.
1993 U.S.A. NAFTA

December 8th, 1993 : The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ( United States, Canada, and Mexico ) is signed into law by US President Bill Clinton. In terms of gross domestic product (GDP) it is the largest trading bloc and trade agreement in the world


  • 0

#14
iluvaa

iluvaa

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

Actually, the treaty was signed by Pres. George Bush, the first--a Republican. It was not ratified by the U.S. Senate until after Clinton took office--ratified by a REPUBLICAN controlled U.S. Senate. N.A.F.T.A is a treaty, not a law. Since it is a treaty, there was no need for President Clinton to sign it. It had already been signed by President Bush. It only needed ratification by the U.S. Senate.

while what you say is true dont for a second think Mr. Clinton wasnt for this, here is a snipit of his speech on signing day

Many Americans are still worried that this agreement will
move jobs south of the border because they've seen jobs move south of
the border and because they know that there are still great
differences in the wage rates. There have been 19 serious economic
studies of NAFTA by liberals and conservatives alike; 18 of them have
concluded that there will be no job loss.


Businesses do not choose to locate based solely on wages.
If they did, Haiti and Bangladesh would have the largest number of
manufacturing jobs in the world. Businesses do choose to locate based
on the skills and productivity of the work force, the attitude of the
government, the roads and railroads to deliver products, the
availability of a market close enough to make the transportation costs
meaningful, the communications networks necessary to support the
enterprise. That is our strength, and it will continue to be our
strength. As it becomes Mexico's strength and they generate more
jobs, they will have higher incomes and they will buy more American
products
http://www.historyce...gningNaFTA.html
  • 0

#15
Buck

Buck

    Veteran

  • Contributor
  • 5033 posts

Actually, the treaty was signed by Pres. George Bush, the first--a Republican. It was not ratified by the U.S. Senate until after Clinton took office--ratified by a REPUBLICAN controlled U.S. Senate. N.A.F.T.A is a treaty, not a law. Since it is a treaty, there was no need for President Clinton to sign it. It had already been signed by President Bush. It only needed ratification by the U.S. Senate.

President Obama can stop NAFTA by Excutive Order, just like he is enacting laws today by bypassing Congress.
  • 0

#16
FWAAA

FWAAA

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8780 posts

Actually, the treaty was signed by Pres. George Bush, the first--a Republican. It was not ratified by the U.S. Senate until after Clinton took office--ratified by a REPUBLICAN controlled U.S. Senate. N.A.F.T.A is a treaty, not a law. Since it is a treaty, there was no need for President Clinton to sign it. It had already been signed by President Bush. It only needed ratification by the U.S. Senate.


Actually, the Senate was controlled by Democrats late in 1993 by a margin of 57-43 as a result of the 1992 elections. Nevertheless, 27 Democrats in the Senate voted in favor of NAFTA, joining 34 Republicans.
  • 0

#17
jimntx

jimntx

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7970 posts
However, it is your good Republican rich guys that want NAFTA to stay in place. Cheap labor abounds as long as NAFTA is in force. If the money boys wanted NAFTA gone, it would be gone. For that matter, if NAFTA is such a Democrat/Clinton thing that is bad for the country, why didn't your boy, Georgie get it repealed?
  • 0
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not your sport.

#18
Buck

Buck

    Veteran

  • Contributor
  • 5033 posts

Looks like DL is expanding their aircraft maintenance relationship with Aeromexico. DL just announced a big investment in the MX MRO so they can do 737 and MD80 work. Article said widebody capacity will be added in the second phase. Gotta love that NAFTA! Is this part of that big flushing sound Ross Perot talked about?

Read in Aviation Week

So if jobs are leaving the U.S. based on your assumption that Airlines are outsourcing their checks based on NAFTA, then what should the TWU do about it?

Again the president can stop it by executive order.

Maybe Little Jim can call Barack?
  • 0

#19
iluvaa

iluvaa

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 806 posts

So if jobs are leaving the U.S. based on your assumption that Airlines are outsourcing their checks based on NAFTA, then what should the TWU do about it?

Again the president can stop it by executive order.

Maybe Little Jim can call Barack?

um deny, um change the subject, ummmmm lie if I have to
  • 0

#20
FWAAA

FWAAA

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8780 posts

So timco is getting well over a month for a C check? Where is the savings in that?


According to AA, narrowbody heavy C checks typically take three to five weeks:

Narrowbody "C" Checks
American does two types of "C" checks on its narrowbody planes. The first is a "Light C" check, which occurs approximately every 15 - 18 months. It requires approximately 2,100 man-hours and three days to accomplish. Every fourth "Light C" check becomes a "Heavy C" check. This check requires 20,000 - 30,000 man-hours and takes from three to five weeks to accomplish.


If the above is incorrect, then how long does a typical 757 heavy C check take?

The potential savings arise if Timco is able to perform the work for less money than the total cost of having AA's employees perform the work. The length of time the plane is out of service is of no real consequence right now, since every analyst has been calling for AA to reduce capacity due to high fuel prices and slack demand. If Timco's price is right, it probably doesn't matter how long it takes. The time a plane is out of service matters a whole hell of a lot more when flying it produces profits (not a situation facing AA since 2007).
  • 0

#21
jimntx

jimntx

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7970 posts

IT was signed into law by Bill Clinton

[/size]
[/b]

You're absolutely correct. My mistake. However, from the history of NAFTA..."In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members."
  • 0
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not your sport.

#22
FWAAA

FWAAA

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8780 posts
Republicans thought that higher tariffs on imported goods was a good idea more than 80 years ago, but the Great Depression just got worse after it was passed. I would have thought that Republicans and Democrats would have both learned lessons from the Smoot-Hawley Act, but ignorance is difficult to eradicate. Free trade isn't a Republican or Democrat ideal - it should be the goal of all who love freedom.

To be fair, very few Democrats voted for Smoot-Hawley. Nearly all of the yes votes were Republicans. Just another reason that Republicans took it on the chin in the 1930 and 1932 elections. For some unknown reason, unions tend to hate free trade - but some unions actually like free trade: the longshoremen that NHBB used to speak of so glowingly. Free trade means even more shipping containers, meaning even more work and higher pay for the longshoremen who get to unload all that cargo.
  • 0

#23
eolesen

eolesen

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10453 posts

So timco is getting well over a month for a C check? Where is the savings in that?


This was discussed not too long ago -- the normal timeframe is 22-28 days for the TWU according to people here as well as one of the consultants I know who worked in TUL.

The 06Dec ETR works out to about 27 weekdays:

  • Assuming they started work on 27Oct, that's 3 days in October
  • There are only 21 workdays in November when you factor out Thanksgiving
  • Assuming it is handed over to AA on the 5th, that's 3 days in December


For some unknown reason, unions tend to hate free trade - but some unions actually like free trade: the longshoremen that NHBB used to speak of so glowingly. Free trade means even more shipping containers, meaning even more work and higher pay for the longshoremen who get to unload all that cargo.


... as do the unionized railroad employees moving it...

I live near one of the mainlines between California and Illinois: 44 trains a day, of which 30+ are container trains and another six or seven are auto-racks coming in a direction from which there are no factories... in the US, that is.
  • 0
"Now do not misunderstand me; danger is very real. But fear is a choice." BStickerMonicaExBoyfriendWifePresident.p

#24
Mr Red

Mr Red

    Veteran

  • Registered Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 607 posts

Republicans thought that higher tariffs on imported goods was a good idea more than 80 years ago, but the Great Depression just got worse after it was passed. I would have thought that Republicans and Democrats would have both learned lessons from the Smoot-Hawley Act, but ignorance is difficult to eradicate. Free trade isn't a Republican or Democrat ideal - it should be the goal of all who love freedom.

To be fair, very few Democrats voted for Smoot-Hawley. Nearly all of the yes votes were Republicans. Just another reason that Republicans took it on the chin in the 1930 and 1932 elections. For some unknown reason, unions tend to hate free trade - but some unions actually like free trade: the longshoremen that NHBB used to speak of so glowingly. Free trade means even more shipping containers, meaning even more work and higher pay for the longshoremen who get to unload all that cargo.

Free trades been GREAT ................FOR CHINA !!!
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users